Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
City to city at nearly 14,000 ppsm, that has to count for something. Why even count suburbs and places like the inland empire when we're talking about urban and cities. So far everything I read says #1 in Canada in ppsm. It might not be as old but to me feels just as dense and urban as most.
City limits are a poor comparison as some cities contains a much larger portion of their metro than others. Have you spent time in Boston or Philly? While Vancouver's downtown might feel as busy as those, IMO there's a sharper drop off leaving the center.
no, at street level it doesn't feel like it, and the skyline looks way better in pictures. They are actually mostly low to mid rises and many look very similar. To me it's more like Portland with a skyline. Basically a bunch of their residential is crammed in high rises. In no way does it feel bustling as somewhere like SF which is the focal point of an 8+million people metro.
look at the high rises, now look at all the space in between them, look at the multilane highways between them.. that kills the "urbanity" and bustling. Vancouver uses some weird development planning, for sure.
no, at street level it doesn't feel like it, and the skyline looks way better in pictures. They are actually mostly low to mid rises and many look very similar. To me it's more like Portland with a skyline. Basically a bunch of their residential is crammed in high rises. In no way does it feel bustling as somewhere like SF which is the focal point of an 8+million people metro.
I can show this in pictures when you go aerial
look at the high rises, now look at all the space in between them, look at the multilane highways between them.. that kills the "urbanity" and bustling. Vancouver uses some weird development planning, for sure.
Now look at SF...
notice the almost no wasted space anywhere.
That's kind of funny to complain about multi-lane highways when all Vancouver has are a couple of multi-block viaducts. SF has way more highway infrastructure within it still even after tearing down several sections.
That's kind of funny to complain about multi-lane highways when all Vancouver has are a couple of multi-block viaducts. SF has way more highway infrastructure within it still even after tearing down several sections.
I'm complaining also about the space. SF does not have it within it so much, it mostly goes around it, and it is more b/c there are way more people coming into SF in the daytime. SF is way denser street level than Vancouver, anybody who can't see this needs to get their eyes checked next time they go there.
That's kind of funny to complain about multi-lane highways when all Vancouver has are a couple of multi-block viaducts. SF has way more highway infrastructure within it still even after tearing down several sections.
I have been to Montreal, Philly, Boston and SF but never to Vancouver. This is why I started the thread was to get a feel for its size.
I can honestly say after seeing those pictures that grapico made a great point. The buildings have huge spaces between them in aerials.
^^ DevanXL, That graph is showing the weighted density of the selected metro areas. The data used is from the 2000 census for the American metros and the 2006 census for the Canadian metros, so there would be some changes in the rankings when more current data is used. For example, I believe Toronto has moved up in the rankings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.